No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Accessing the Inaccessible: Demonstrators as Sources of Tacit Knowledge
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 May 2022
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
This paper highlights a recently identified by the community perspective of design research, so far described as “inaccessible”, discusses the potential of “designerly” way of approaching it in order to let designers excavate tacit knowledge from their own finished projects. We frame demonstrators as a category of design outcomes that can be a great source of such knowledge. Skills of empathy and intuition are called crucial for researchers to position themselves inside the design system looking inwards.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2022.
References
Amatullo, M. and Donahue, S. (2008), The Los Angeles Earthquake: Get Ready Project “La Has Faults” Pilot Study and Public Awareness Campaign for Earthquake Preparedness Report to the California Seismic Safety Commission, available at: https://4eyos01khlgv2ccw28adjy2x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/EQLA-OnesheetEQLA-final.pdf (accessed 10 November 2021).Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P. and Eris, O. (2014), “A Theoretical Approach to Intuition in Design: Does Design Methodology Need to Account for Unconscious Processes?”, in Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L.T.M. (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, Springer, London, pp. 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R. (1977), “The Death of the Author”, Image, Music, Text, Fontana, pp. 142–148.Google Scholar
Boer, L., Donovan, J. and Buur, J. (2013), “Challenging industry conceptions with provotypes”, CoDesign, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonsiepe, G. (2008), “The Uneasy Relationship between Design and Design Research”, Design Research Now, No. May, pp. 25–39.Google Scholar
Brand, S. (1988), The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at M. I. T., Reprint ed., Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Campenhout, L. Van, Frens, J.W., Overbeeke, K., Standaert, A. and Peremans, H. (2013), “Physical interaction in a dematerialized world”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Chow, R.W. and Jonas, W. (2008), “Beyond Dualisms in Methodology: An Integrative Design Research Medium “MAPS” and some Reflections”, in Durling, D., Rust, C., Chen, L.-L., Ashton, P. and Friedman, K. (Eds.), Undisciplined!, Sheffield Hallam University, available at: http://digitalcommons.shu.ac.uk/drs2008/session10/track_b/2.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2001), “Designerly ways of knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science”, Design Issues, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darke, J. (1979), “The primary generator and the design process”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 36–44.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2019), “Design beyond Design”, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Elsevier, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 117–127.Google Scholar
Dubberly, H. (2004), How Do You Design, available at: http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you-design.html.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Clarkson, P.J. and Stacey, M.K. (2003), “The spiral of applied research: A methodological view on integrated design research”, in Folkeson, A; Gralen, K; Norell, M; Sellgren, U. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, pp. 245–246.Google Scholar
Ellis, C., Adams, T.E. and Bochner, A.P. (2010), “View of Autoethnography: An Overview”, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 12 (1) No. Art. 10, available at:https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-12.1.1589.Google Scholar
Findeli, A. (1998), “A Quest for Credibility: Doctoral Education and Research in Design at the University of Montreal”, in Buchanan, R., Doordan, D., Justice, L. and Margolin, V. (Eds.), Doctoral Education in Design, The School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 99–116.Google Scholar
Frayling, C. (1993), “Research in Art and Design”, Royal College of Art Research Papers, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Friedman, K. (2008), “Research into, by and for design”, Journal of Visual Art Practice, Ken Friedman, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 153–160.Google Scholar
Frost, R.B. (1999), “Why does industry ignore design science?”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 301–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, L.A. (2014), “Five stories of accidental ethnography: turning unplanned moments in the field into data”:, 10.1177/1468794114548945, SAGE PublicationsSage UK: London, England, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 525–539.Google Scholar
Gasparini, A.A. (2015), “Perspective and use of empathy in design thinking”, ACHI 2015 - 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, No. March, pp. 49–54.Google Scholar
Grand, S. and Jonas, W. (2012), Mapping Design Research: Positions and Perspectives, Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Heskett, J. (2016), A John Heskett Reader: Design, History, Economics: John Heskett: Clive Dilnot: Bloomsbury Academic, edited by Clive, D., 1st ed., Bloomsbury, available at: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/a-john-heskett-reader-9781474221269/.Google Scholar
Horváth, I. (2007), “Comparison of three methodological approaches of design research”, Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. DS 42 No. August, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Horváth, I. (2008), “Differences between ‘research in design context’ and ‘design inclusive research’ in the domain of industrial design engineering”, Journal of Design Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, W. (2008), “Design Research and its Meaning to the Methodological Development of the Discipline”, Design Research Now, De Gruyter, pp. 187–206.Google Scholar
King, S. and Chang, K. (2016), Understanding Industrial Design [Book], O'Reilly Media, Inc., available at: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-industrial-design/9781491920381/.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (1989), On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition That “Design Is Making Sense (Of Things)”, Source: Design Issues, Vol. 5, available at: https://about.jstor.org/terms (accessed 26 April 2021).Google Scholar
Kumar, V. (2009), “A process for practicing design innovation”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30 No. 2/3, pp. 91–100.Google Scholar
Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S. and Boullier, D. (2012), “‘The whole is always smaller than its parts’-a digital test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads 1”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 591–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Y.K., Stolterman, E. and Tenenberg, J. (2008), “The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 15 No. 2, available at:10.1145/1375761.1375762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markham, A.N., Lindgren, S., Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., Beverungen, A., Ellis, N., Sabelis, I., et al. . (1996), “Discourse analysis: exploring action, function and conflict in social texts”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 27, pp. 65–68.Google Scholar
Meehan, P.W. (2018), “The Actors of Design — Rethinking the functions and roles of the contemporary designer”, Medium.Com, available at: https://medium.com/patrickwmeehan/the-actors-of-design-rethinking-the-functions-and-roles-of-the-contemporary-designer-3452ad007a29 (accessed 10 November 2021).Google Scholar
Miller, G.A. (1956), “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information”, Psychological Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, H.G. and Stolterman, E. (2012), The Design Way. Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Owen, C.L. (1998), “Design research: building the knowledge base”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Poel, I. (2018), “Design for value change”, Ethics and Information Technology 2018 23:1, Springer, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 27–31.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1974), Personal Knowledge, University Of Chicago Press, available at: https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Knowledge-Towards-Post-Critical-Philosophy/dp/0226672883.Google Scholar
Redström, J. (2017), Making Design Theory, The MIT Press, available at: 10.7551/mitpress/11160.001.0001.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1984), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1992), “The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey's Legacy to Education”, Curriculum Inquiry, JSTOR, Vol. 22 No. 2, p. 119.Google Scholar
Smulders, F., Lousberg, L. and Dorst, K. (2008), “Towards different communication in collaborative design”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 352–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spanjaard, D. (2015), “The Accidental Ethnographer: a journey within the world of the supermarket”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 23 No. 4, available at:https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2015.10.006.Google Scholar
Stappers, P.J. and Visser, F.S. (2007), “Bringing participatory design techniques to industrial design engineers”, DS 43: Proceedings of E&PDE 2007, the 9th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, University of Northumbria, Newcastle, UK, 13.-14.09.2007, pp. 117–122.Google Scholar
Suib, Sarah S. S. B., Van Engelen, J.M.L. and Crul, M.R.M. (2020), “Enhancing Knowledge Exchange and Collaboration Between Craftspeople and Designers Using the Concept of Boundary Objects”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 113–133.Google Scholar
Sviridova, A., Everaerts, S., Tas, L., Yachchou, S., van Hoofstat, L. and Verlinden, J. (2021), “The Role of Auditory Description in Comprehension of Demonstrators: A Pilot Study”, Advances in Creativity, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Communication of Design, Vol. 276, Springer, Cham, pp. 530–538.Google Scholar
Sviridova, A., Stokhuijzen, D. and Verlinden, J.C. (2022), “Embrace the change: Framing Demonstrators as an Alternative to the Mass Production Norm in Industrial Design Education”, In Print.Google Scholar
Teegavarapu, S., Summers, J.D. and Mocko, G.M. (2008), “Case study method for design research: A justification”, Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Vol. 4, pp. 495–503.Google Scholar
Verlinden, J. and Horváth, I. (2007), “A critical systems position on augmented prototyping systems for industrial design”, 2007 Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, DETC2007, Vol. 1, pp. 1143–1151.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. (2012), “A (very) Brief Refresher on the CaseE Study Method”, Applications of Case Study Research, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access